Model comparison
Gemma 7B vs Qwen1.5-7B
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 8 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen1.5-7B leads 28.5 to 25.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 30.0 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 7B: 30.5 (#294), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1048 | 1107 |
| HumanEval+ | 28.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 43.4% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 7B: 19.9 (#249), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1042 | 1065 |
| Adversarial NLI | 48.7% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 55.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 111.99 | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.2% | — |
| PIQA | 81.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 79% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemma 7B: 31.2 (#228), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1066 | 1080 |
| GSM8K | 46.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 7B: 27.3 (#252), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1001 | 1055 |
| MMLU | 66.1% | 62.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 83.2% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 78.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 72.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 7B: 25.1 (#287), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 999 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1035 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 993 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1025 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 7B: 51.5 (#295), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1017 | 1058 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 7B: 31.1 (#282), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1022 | 1090 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-7B leads
Gemma 7B: 27.1 (#302), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)
| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1056 | 1083 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1024 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 963 | 1062 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 7B better than Qwen1.5-7B?
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 7B or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.2 versus 30.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 7B and Qwen1.5-7B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 7B has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.